America has 2,000 young offenders serving life terms in jail

[cal04]

Two leading human rights organisations have accused the United States of in effect throwing away the lives of more than 2,000 juvenile offenders sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole - a punishment out of step with international law but one increasingly popular with tough-on-crime US legislators. According to a report being published today by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the United States is the only country to punish juveniles so severely on a routine basis. They counted 2,225 child offenders locked up for life across 42 American states. In the rest of the world, they found only a dozen other cases, restricted to three countries - Israel, South Africa and Tanzania.

"Criminal punishment in the United States can serve four goals: rehabilitation, retribution, deterrence and incapacitation," the report concludes, and that no punishment "should be more severe than necessary to achieve these stated goals. Sentencing children to life without parole fails to measure up on all counts."
Some American states permit the imposition of a life sentence without parole to offenders as young as 10. The youngest actually serving such a sentence are 13. Roughly one-sixth of those locked up for life committed their offences when they were under 16. Almost 60 per cent were given their life sentence for their first offence.

In most cases, the crime in question was murder. But about a quarter of those locked up, the report found, were not the actual murderers, merely participants in a robbery or burglary in which a murder was committed by someone else. In many American states, draconian laws stipulate that being present at the scene of a murder can be equivalent to being guilty of the murder, with punishment meted out accordingly.The report found that while the number of juvenile offenders being sentenced to life had gone up markedly over the past 25 years, the rate of serious juvenile crime had gone down. In most years since 1985, juvenile offenders have been sentenced to life without parole at a faster rate than adult murderers.



Amnesty and Human Rights Watch said it was inappropriate to deny the possibility of rehabilitation to teenagers. Sentencing them to life inside a prison removed motivation to pursue an education or any self-improvement. Being in an adult prison rather than a juvenile facility also exposed them to a heightened risk of assault and rape. Sentencing children to life without parole is forbidden under the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been ratified by every member state except the US and Somalia. Out of 154 countries surveyed in the report, 13 were found to have laws on their books permitting life sentences for minors, but nine of these had never actually imposed one.

rest of the article
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article318840.ece

[WearyOne]

1. this is truly dreadful

[saigon68]

2. I WONDER HOW MANY ARE BLACK and other MINORITIES?

[0007]

3. I would guess around 70%

Here's a video about prisons. It will fire right up, no hoops to jump through.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article8451.htm

[saigon68]

40. Its one way to "WHITEN UP" amerika.

The chimp and Cheney get off on shit like this.

[shanti]

10. i was just going to post that

of course, we know the answer to that already :-(

[truthisfreedom]

4. THE UN HATES US FOR OUR FREEDOMS! IT'S OBVIOUS!

they hate everything we stand for. freedom to invade, freedom to escape punishment for any kind of crime when you're white, wealthy, and well-connected, freedom to serve life sentences without parole when we're underage... they just hate freedom altogether, don't they?
that's why we need john bolton. without bolton, we're doomed, i tell you... DOOMED!

/insane rant

[IntravenousDemilo]

5. What a shit-hole of a place sometimes, eh?

You need another revolution.

[ninkasi]

6. What a wonderful example of hope and humanity we are...

We can, in some states, sentence a child as young as 10 to life without parole, and we have a president who has threatened to use his veto for the first time if it prohibits torture. What a wonderful, caring, truly noble society we are! And WE actually have the never to lecture other countries about their policies?

We are a world disgrace. I can only imagine what truly civilized people must think about us. I feel like selling everything I own, buying a ticket to ANYPLACE, and just start grabbing people and apologizing.

[Endangered Specie]

7. Am I the only one who doesnt find this disturbing?

Bear with me as I don't go out of my way to express 'sympathy' for murders, no matter what their age is. But why the hell should you be let off the hook more if you kill someone just because you happen to be a minor?


To hell with international law in this case. In my book if you kill someone you get the slammer the rest of your days, and perhaps, capital punishment, for the worst, most henious of murders.

[Gnostic]

8. Different psychology

Minors, and especially extreme minors such as those under, say, 13, don't really have the capacity for rational thought that adults do, since, after all, their minds are'nt yet fully developed. Therefor, a psychological or even a physical illness, trauma, abuse, severe neglect, hunger, etc may much more easily trigger harmful or even self-defeating/suicidal tendencies or, yes, murderous behavior. And, it is not known at this stage in most cases whether the person in question even has a serious psychological problem.

This country almost leads the world in teen suicides.

This is why most of the "civilized" world forbids life imprisonment, much less capital punishment (yes, minors were put to death here in just the last century) of children.

Let off the hook? Certainly you can differentiate the difference between a cold blooded adult killer and a very troubled child. The killer has already had a life to mature within.

The goal behind incarcerating a minor for a horrific offense should be rehabilitation and help, so that perhaps the child may have a chance at a life if deemed fitting and deserved, as opposed to retribution.


Retribution against a child, no matter what the offense, seems rather "unchristian-like" to me. I wonder what jaysus would have to say about that, Mr President?

[brentspeak]

15. Retribution has nothing to do with it

Public safety is what matters.

[Laughing Mirror]

16. Public safety?

Are you really that terrified of children who haven't even reached puberty yet? How much protection does a grown person need in society?

This is barbarity and that's all it is.

The US and Somalia the only ones. That should tell you something.

[brentspeak]

23. The issue is adolescents who commit murder

Not those who haven't yet reached puberty.

A teen who commits cold-blooded murder - like anyone of any age who commits cold-blooded murder - clearly can't be allowed to roam free on the streets. That's a no-brainer.

[Laughing Mirror]

29. The mob in the White House is committing many murders a day

and yet is allowed to roam free, and even commit more murders.

If you think a child who has (or maybe has not) killed somebody in the US should be treated much much more harsher ande brutal than a child who might have committed the same crime in a more civilized country, which happens to be every country in the world, save one, then I wonder who has the brains here.

Is there something so exceptional about American kids who have done some terrible crime that they should be treated harsher?

[Gnostic]

35. The no-brainer is.....

....that locking up children OR adolescents for LIFE is wrong, and amounts to nothing short of retribution. That was what was being discussed here, remember?

And I don't think anyone is arguing that any child of any age who commits outright murder (excepting self-defense or extreme abuse) should not be taken off the streets and secured. The point was and is that the object and goal of such incarceration should be to help the person, delve inside of them and find out what caused it to happen in the first place, and attempt to create a path to rehabilitation or a procedure to correct the issue or illness so that they may one day again have even just half a fighting chance at a life again.

The issue was about locking them up for life, which amounts to none of that, does away with hope and encourages continued criminality, abuse and neglect.

[WildClarySage]

9. I'm not sure that the only alternative to a life sentence for a 10-12 yr

old is to be "let off the hook". Perhaps more creative efforts at rehabilitation and discipline can be found if we put our minds to it. These are people whose lives are not enriching society by being locked up for 40-70 years, and yet with proper punative goals and strategies, they can be.

[Orsino]

12. Perhaps because...

...any meaningful definition of "minor" must include a recognition that the individual is not completely ready for adult responsibility.

This does not bring dead victims back to life, of course, but if there is a reason for any sort of leniency, I think that this would be it.

[nickgutierrez]

18. From the article:

In most cases, the crime in question was murder. But about a quarter of those locked up, the report found, were not the actual murderers, merely participants in a robbery or burglary in which a murder was committed by someone else. In many American states, draconian laws stipulate that being present at the scene of a murder can be equivalent to being guilty of the murder, with punishment meted out accordingly.The report found that while the number of juvenile offenders being sentenced to life had gone up markedly over the past 25 years, the rate of serious juvenile crime had gone down. In most years since 1985, juvenile offenders have been sentenced to life without parole at a faster rate than adult murderers.

So, about 25% of these aren't "murderers" at all. Co-conspirators, yes, but I don't think that's the same thing as actually pulling the trigger.

[brentspeak]

25. Agreed, the co-conspirators shouldn't be locked up for life

Not like I'm condoning their part in a murder. But the criminal justice system today has mandatory sentencing laws which require judges to hand out the max punishment for those who might find themselves in the wrong place and the wrong time. Some teens have been condemned to jail for decades, if not life, for that reason.

Teens who took an active role in a cold-blooded murder are a whole other story.

[K-W]

34. Gosh I hope so. EOM

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. Did you read the article?

Some of them are serving life terms simply because they tagged along with another kid who actually committed the murder. When you were a teen, did you ever go along with another kid's plans simply because you were afraid to go against someone more socially powerful?

Even in the most notorious case in recent Oregon history, Kip Kinkel, who was responsible for the shootings at Springfield High School, was a mentally ill 15-year-old who heard voices and who whimpered "Kill me, kill me" when he was subdued.

Would he have even committed the crimes if his parents (whom he killed before going to school) had recognized the signs of serious mental disturbance and gotten him competent help instead of encouraging his sudden interest in guns?

As it is, he's serving life without parole. Imagine, life without parole at age fifteen. I wonder if he can even conceive of how long that is at his age. I wonder if he would even be a danger to society if his mental illness were properly treated.

We have a nasty attitude toward juvenile offenders in this country. Yes, they do horrible things at times, but in working with teens and college students in both a professional and a volunteer capacity, I've noticed that some of them are capable of reinventing themselves to an amazing degree.

Remember the case of the Michigan first grader who shot a classmate with a gun brought from home? When Michael Moore interviewed the police chief from that town, he said that people wrote in from all over the country demanding that the kid be imprisoned for life or even executed.

Some kids are extremely damaged and cannot be rehabilitated. I saw some of them in working with street kids, and frankly, they were scary. But some of the kids in the article are guilty only of being dimwitted and insecure.

[slackmaster]

11. Only 2,000 out of 280 million people?

That doesn't sound like a lot to me. I've personally met a few teenagers who seemed like good candidates to be locked up for life.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IA_Seth]

19. Hey...

I hope you are trying to be sarcastic and all, but the use of "camel jockes" is pretty offensive to me, and I assume it is to others as well.

I ask that you please don't use it.

It would be the same as sarcastic use of the n word, which I don't think most people would do.

[snooper2]

21. Need to open your eyes and read a little bit more....

Because I hate to say it, but someone who races a camel is called a camel jockey.

Does nobody here watch "Real Sports" with Bryant Gumbel? Anyway, the reason for my post is that these are some of the most mistreated children in the World. So, no, my post could not be construed as "offensive" or in the most remote way compared with the "n" word.

Here, read this....do you find this article offensive, because I do, and I saw Mr. Gumbel's report on this issue and it was heartbreaking what these bastards are doing to these kids.

--------------
Shocking video highlights 'Real Sports'
Tuesday October 19 12:32 PM ET

By Aaron Barnhart, TV Barn

In a previous telecast, “Real Sports With Bryant Gumbel”looked at the sorry state of American Thoroughbred jockeys, many of whom struggle with eating disorders. Not to trivialize their plight, but it pales in comparison with the story “Real Sports” will tell in this month’s edition (premiering at 10 p.m. ET Tuesday on HBO) about camel jockeys.

Not only is that not a joke — camel racing is a billion-dollar business in the Arab world — but it is a really sick non-joke. It’s a tragic tale of child slavery and exploitation that reaches all the way to our race tracks.

For years U.S. officials have known that rich oil states were kidnapping children from underdeveloped countries and using them for riding camels; the younger and lighter, the better. The Americans were assured that this practice has ended. It hasn’t.

In the United Arab Emirates, reporter Bernard Goldberg and an HBO crew used hidden cameras to document the widespread practice of trafficking in jockeys. The treatment of these kids is unimaginable, the video heartbreaking.

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/tvb/20041019/109821434600p.html

[IA_Seth]

26. Need to put your comments in context....

That made a lot more sense when put into the context above, and you are right, there is nothing offensive when using an appropriate term.

However, maybe you should "open your eyes" and realize that "camel jockey" can be offensive, and maybe frame your terminology a little better next time.

Thanks for the background...I appreciate your response.

[snooper2]

27. I thought I was clear in my first post,

But I guess if you have never heard of these 5-6-7 year old kids in the middle of the desert and what they are forced to do, then I can see the mis-interpertation.

(and the fact that I can't spell doesn't help , on edit :) )

no hard feelings. :hi:

[superconnected]

14. I know a family who has child in prison

because he helped beat a disabled man to death. The mans caretaker paid him and his frieds to do it. I believe one of the girls was 12, and then a 13 yo boy, and 14 yo girl and a 16 yo boy.

The girls stabbed him quite a bit with knives while the boys hit him with the baseball bat till he was dead.

Sorry, my opinion, GAS THEM. I don't care how old they are.

Now under 12, I say re-evaluate them every 10 years. Under 9, treat them like someone who doesn't know right from wrong and don't lock them up past age 20.

My own opinon only. I'm not big on murderers at any age. Especially 12- which I happen to feel is cognizant enough.

[Laughing Mirror]

17. Gas them?

Reading some of these posts, I have the feeling I've left the Democratic Underground and have entered into some other underground.

What if that kid was your kid? Would you still say, sorry, you're not big on murderers but in this case GAS YOU?

[superconnected]

20. I know the family. My sister married into it.

They want their murdering son out of prison now.

As you read correctly, my opinon is GAS him.

I'm a 5'2" woman. If someone kills me, I want them to pay with their life.

Again, GAS the little fucker.

If I had a kid that murdered someone I'm sure I'd cry at the funeral, after they gassed him/her.

Let your kids kill people and get to live. I think thats F@#ed. The only saving grace at all for minor offenders is how culpable, they are, imo.

12 IS culpable in my opinion.

Kelly

[Laughing Mirror]

22. So if you let your kids kill people, you're the real guilty one

Gas you.

[superconnected]

24. I never said if someone lets their kids kill people, they are guilty.

That's your words. It's really shows your integrity that you would put quotes on that.


Oh look you removed the quotes. Gone but not forgotten.

[WildClarySage]

28. ? ---post 22 does not appear to be edited?

So I'm assuming that you think your 12 yr old can marry, buy and consume alcohol, drive, buy lottery tickets, borrow against credit cards, sign up for military service, provide informed consent for all medical procedures, and can purchase his own home? Because my 11 year old can't even sign up for Columbia House at his maturity level. There's a reason a classification of "minor" exists, and if someone's child is unsupervised and given no moral standing that he/she would murder someone, then that child's parents have failed their child, and should be punished. If your 12 yr old murders, then I'm more inclined to accept your being gassed for failing your child.

[superconnected]

31. You can assume anything you want.

But don't put words in my mouth, like the other poster, either.

As far as that post that doesn't appear to be edited, I am aware of that. I first looked at it and saw it had quotes.

Why is it changed now, gee I was wondering. I'm a server admin so I chalked it up to that person having better resources on DU. Hopefully I was wrong about the quotes. Since I am a server admin, I'll trust my first reaction.

[superconnected]

32. I at no point said a parent should be punnished.

You believe a parent should be punnished for their kids actions?

At 12, kids may not be able to join Columbia House, but they manage to act independently of their parents all day long.

I'm for parents paying if a kid throws a rock through a window, but not if the kid murders someone.

BTW, I think another factor should be thrown in. That of gratituious killing. When someone kills in self defense, or in retaliation of great abuse, I think it's a lot different than killing for money, drugs, the fun of it etc. I feel the gratuitous killer should be gassed. I don't think they should have the luxury of being locked up.

I don't care how much the little murderers parents love them. Tough. I don't believe they deserve to live.

[Laughing Mirror]

30. I'll assume that you were just hallucinating those quotes

that were never there to begin with, I was not quoting you, but that's all right, that's okay, I understand your confusion, really I do. Half the posts I'm reading on this thread make me wonder I'm not hallucinating too.

[Mr Grieves]

33. I too feel like I'm hallucinating...

There are kids serving life sentences for being at the scene of a crime. This is FAR more outrageous to me than the possibility that some kid somewhere might not be GASSED for murder. What if yours was the kid, who through bad choices about with whom he hung out ended up in the slammer for LIFE? To me it's always a greater injustice to wrongly imprison someone than to not get the EYE for the EYE. I'd hate to see the Scott Peterson trial discussed here. . .

[superconnected]

36. "There are kids serving life sentences for being at the scene of a crime."

I've seen this on this thread, but I've never read about this happening in real life.

I'm sure somewhere it may have, but it's still very hard to believe.

[pschoeb]

39. Maybe it would help to read the original article

"In most cases, the crime in question was murder. But about a quarter of those locked up, the report found, were not the actual murderers, merely participants in a robbery or burglary in which a murder was committed by someone else."

[superconnected]

41. I read that.

and if you follow the thread, participants can do things like stab the person but not issue the final killing blow. As far as someone standing around during a murder and getting sentenced to life in prison, I've never heard of that happening. I've only worked at a court house - in the court while it's in session, and a few police departments. It's highly unlikely the person didn't participate in some way - if they are getting life in prison.

There may be a case somewhere where this has happened but it would be a very rare thing.

[Gnostic]

37. Revenge

"I'm a 5'2" woman. If someone kills me, I want them to pay with their life.

Again, GAS the little fucker."


Oh my, how vindictive. Quite unpleasant to see unbridaled raw, base, animalistic, vengeful and hateful emotions based on egocentric self importance. I guess evolution really does take awhile.

If someone murders me, I would like to see something POSITIVE come out of it, if for nothing else than karma's sake. If that means, after a period of punishing yet self-reflective and educational incarceration my murderer can actually become a person of value to the world, then I shall rest in peace. To avenge my death, with yet another senseless death, would not make right anything, and I fail to see how I could support a death penalty even if a relative of mine were murdered (though I'm sure in the heat of angst and fury over the crime the idea would appeal strongly to the base emotions). Death never solves anything, including crime itself.

[superconnected]

42. Good for you.

IMO some deaths are not senseless. Especially when it's the death of a murderer in a gratituous killing. Or, someone, who has comitted genocide like in Rwanda. My opinion is pretty clear that I believe monsters should be killed.

Since you consider that unbridled hate, I'll consider it projection of what you would have, if you allowed yourself to cross your line of taking the life of a killer.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. A few years ago, there was a petition circulating among anti-death

penalty advocates saying that if they happened to be murdered, they did NOT want their murderers executed.

Some people think with their heads instead of with their guts.

[pschoeb]

38. You might want to get rid of the Arundhati Roy picture in your posts

I'm not sure it really suits you